California Court of Appeal Sep 14, 2021 No. E075443Unpublished
Filed 9/14/21 P. v. Beasley CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E075443
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI17002102)
JAMAL BEASLEY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tony Raphael,
Judge. Affirmed as modified.
William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Robin
Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Jamal Beasley was charged by information with two
counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under 10 years old by a person 18
years or older. (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, counts 1 & 2.) He initially accepted a plea
“It is well established that the imposition of restitution fines constitutes
punishment, and therefore is subject to the proscriptions of the ex post facto clause and
other constitutional provisions.” (Souza, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 143.) The application of
the law in effect at the time of sentencing, as opposed to the law applicable at the time of
the offense was committed, violates ex post facto principles. (Ibid.)
Defendant was convicted of committing two counts of sexual intercourse or
sodomy with a child under 10 years old by a person 18 years or older (§ 288.7, subd. (a))
between June 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011. At the time the crimes were committed,
former section 1202.4 required setting a restitution fine of between $200 and $10,000.
(Former § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).) Section 1202.45 provided for the imposition of an
additional fine in the same amount “in every case where a person is convicted of a crime
and whose sentence includes a period of parole.” (Former § 1202.45.) At the time of
sentencing on July 24, 2020, section 1202.4 provided for a minimum restitution fine of
$300. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court stated it would impose the minimum fines
10
and fees in this case and then ordered defendant to pay restitution under section 1202.4 in
the amount of $300 and a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 in the same
amount. Because the court intended to impose the minimum statutory amount, and the
minimum statutory amount at the time of defendant’s offenses was $200, we will reduce
defendant’s restitution fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 from $300 to $200.3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reduce the amounts of the restitution fine under
section 1202.4 and the parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 to $200. The clerk
of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect
these modifications and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
3 In light of our decision, it is unnecessary to address defendant’s additional contentions that even though he did not object to the $300 fines, his claim is cognizable on appeal and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object. 11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and that the defendant's restitution and parole revocation fines must be reduced to the statutory minimum applicable at the time of the offenses.
Issues
Whether the trial court punished the defendant for exercising his right to a jury trial by imposing a sentence longer than the pretrial plea offer.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
Whether the restitution and parole revocation fines should be reduced to the statutory minimum in effect at the time of the offenses.
Disposition. Affirmed as modified.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The mere fact . . . that following trial defendant received a more severe sentence than he was offered during plea negotiations does not in itself support the inference that he was penalized for exercising his constitutional rights.”
“The court here relied upon proper factors in exercising its discretion to impose the terms consecutively.”
“Because the court intended to impose the minimum statutory amount, and the minimum statutory amount at the time of defendant’s offenses was $200, we will reduce defendant’s restitution fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 from $300 to $200.”